Richard Holbrooke, the late diplomat, would never have let relations
between the United States and Pakistan decline to this level, his widow,
Kati Marton, said on Friday. "The day after [Osama] bin Laden was
killed, Richard would have been on a plane to Pakistan, and he would not
have come home until the relationship was mended," Marton, an author
and journalist, told National Journal. "We never went for a walk in Central Park without calls coming in from Pakistan."

"He knew not only the ISI [Pakistani intelligence] folks, but the
generals and all the politicians and dissidents. He crawled into tents
in refugee camps," Marton said. "He wouldn't have allowed [this] to
happen."

Marton was referring to the freeze in U.S.-Pakistan relations that
began after the Obama administration's raid on bin Laden's compound in
Abbottabad a year ago -- tensions that may now pose the single biggest
obstacle to ending America's longest war. Nominally a U.S. ally,
Pakistan has stepped up its support of violent extremists intent on
attacking U.S. and NATO soldiers in Afghanistan and undermining
stability there. But according to critics in the United States, Europe,
and Pakistan, the issue is still being largely shunted aside by
Washington out of fear, inertia, and a lack of a strategic vision on the
part of the U.S. and NATO.

"It is a failure of diplomacy of the highest order, where we have had
the lives of our people at stake," Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S.
ambassador to Afghanistan and the United Nations, told NJ for
the cover story in this week's issue, "Paralyzed by Pakistan." In order
to keep the Pakistanis even marginally cooperative, Khalilzad said, "I
think frankly we have been too cautious and willing to pay too high a
price."

Before he was forced out of office last year, Pakistan's ambassador
to the U.S., Husain Haqqani--who worked closely with Holbrooke--urged U.S.
officials to adopt a "holistic" approach to the region that would help
wean Pakistan from its military support of Islamists. It never happened.
And today, rather than coming up with a new overarching strategic
policy for Pakistan and the region that is commensurate with the deep
commitments that President Obama and NATO have now made, Washington and
other capitals continue to watch, helplessly, as a middle-sized
developing country defies a superpower and the NATO alliance with
virtual impunity.

"The Americans are completely paralyzed by this situation," said one
European diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. A senior NATO
official also laid the problem on the Americans. "It's quite difficult
at times to find a single U.S. policy on Pakistan, much less
coordination with others."

White House officials, responding to Marton's comments and other criticisms in this article, argued Friday that the U.S.-Pakistan relationship is mainly poor because of "a series of events that were impossible to foresee but had nothing to do with our policy," as one senior administration official put it. The incidents began with the diplomatic furor over a CIA contractor who killed two Pakistanis in early 2011and culminated in the accidental NATO strikes that accidentally killed 24 Pakistani troops last November. That had nothing to do with "poor diplomacy," the official said.

The administration's paralysis has been evident in an intense,
months-long debate over whether to issue an apology to Pakistan over the
errant NATO strikes that killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers last
fall, even though several months have passed since the completion of an
official Pentagon investigation that partially blamed mistakes made by
U.S. forces for the incident, U.S. officials said. The State Department
resurrected the idea earlier this year after repudiating the U.S.
ambassador to Pakistan, Cameron Munter, early on when he pressed for an
immediate apology following the incident last November. But Obama,
facing charges of appeasement from Mitt Romney, has hesitated.

Marton said that by the end of the summer of 2010, Holbrooke, before
he died suddenly that December at the age of 69, had begun to grow
confident that he could deliver a strategic vision for the region that
would address the fundamental issues in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship.
"I think it was in August, when I caught him with a faraway look, the
kind he had when he was working on something in his head. I said,
'Richard what are you thinking about?' He said, 'I think I've got it. I
think I can see how all the pieces can fit together.' It looked like he
was working a Rubik's cube in his head.... The thing that keeps me awake
some nights is that I'm not at all sure he had that conversation with
the president."

It's not clear that would have made a difference, however. Widely
acclaimed as one of America's most masterful diplomats, having
orchestrated the 1995 Dayton peace accord, Holbrooke was intensely
frustrated by White House interference, according to observers inside
and outside the administration. After being named Obama's special
representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009, Holbrooke was said
to have been curtailed by then-National Security Adviser James Jones and
a coterie of close aides around Obama. This was especially true when
Holbrooke sought to tackle the larger regional issues, in particular the
tense relationship between India and Pakistan, which the Pakistani
military and ISI use to justify their support of Islamist radicals. The
White House denied his request to make India and specifically Kashmir
part of his portfolio, although that disputed province, situated between
Pakistan and India, has given birth to numerous Pakistan-supported
jihadist groups. Nor did Holbrooke get support from the White House when
he sought to confront Afghan President Hamid Karzai over corruption,
critics say.

After Holbrooke died suddenly, he was
replaced by career diplomat Marc Grossman, who is widely considered
ineffective and has only provoked back-biting from the State
Department's South and Central Asian bureau, where the assistant
secretary, Robert Blake, has been largely cut out. "It's all Holbrooke's
broken china," says one official. The two leading figures in U.S.
policy in the region, Ryan Crocker, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and
Gen. John Allen, are already making plans to leave (in Crocker's case,
back to retirement, while Allen is expected to be named NATO commander
in Europe). Ambassador Munter, described as increasingly agitated over
the failure of U.S. policy, has been reassigned.

While Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is sometimes praised
for her approach to the region, having recently proposed a "New Silk
Road" to induce Pakistan and other countries to work with Afghanistan,
she too is seen as someone who has been largely cut out of policymaking
by the White House.

In the meantime, U.S. officials have begun to bluntly acknowledge, as
never before, that Pakistan's senior military and intelligence
apparatus are supporting and funding the same jihadists who are killing
U.S. and NATO soldiers--not just Americans, but also British, French,
Italians, and Canadians--and endangering the United States' 10-year,
vastly expensive response to 9/11, placing the outcome of America's
longest war in danger. Even the U.S. Embassy in Kabul -"which is
American soil," U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker angrily
noted in an interview -- was twice attacked by "Pakistan-based
insurgents."

Last September, outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen called the
terrorist Haqqani network in Pakistan's tribal regions, the suspected
culprit behind the Kabul embassy attack, a "veritable arm" of Pakistan's
ISI or intelligence service. Mullen, now retired, is said to be working
on a book that will defend Holbrooke's diplomatic efforts and criticize
the Obama administration.

In recent days, Pakistan's decision to imprison a doctor who helped
the United States confirm bin Laden's whereabouts has only highlighted
the diplomatic issue.

U.S. and NATO officials remain hesitant about offending Islamabad
because of a bedrock fear that, if Pakistan becomes destabilized, its
nuclear arsenal could fall into the wrong hands. That caution ruled at
the recent NATO summit in Chicago, where all the talk was simply about
getting the Pakistanis to permit NATO the use of its overland routes in
order to expedite the pullout.

Despite the rampant anti-Americanism in Pakistan, Khalilzad and other
critics suggest that one alternative is to issue a "demarche" of the
kind the Pakistanis have not been given since right after 9/11,
when then-President Pervez Musharraf was delivered a stark choice:
Support the war against the Taliban totally, or you're through. Now
Pakistan should be confronted with a clear and harsh update of that
choice: confront the international community and be turned into a
sanctioned pariah, like Iran, in which case the country will lose ground
economically and militarily to its arch-rival India. Or, embrace fully
anti-Taliban measures and be rewarded with more economic assistance,
such as Clinton's New Silk Road, which seeks to turn the region into a
commercial hub once again.

"We have to be willing to escalate the pressure, which in my view has
to include Pakistan's very difficult economic circumstances," says
Khalilzad. "Today I think the Pakistanis can cover only about 10 weeks
of imports. We also need to move diplomatically by engaging some key
countries they rely on, like China and Saudi Arabia."

Until he died, Marton says, Holbrooke was trying to get the
administration to see the larger picture. "He was pushing reconciliation
with the Taliban when no one wanted to hear about it," she said. "He
knew that ultimately they would have to come to him to negotiate." But
now negotiations are going nowhere.

Most Popular

Should you drink more coffee? Should you take melatonin? Can you train yourself to need less sleep? A physician’s guide to sleep in a stressful age.

During residency, Iworked hospital shifts that could last 36 hours, without sleep, often without breaks of more than a few minutes. Even writing this now, it sounds to me like I’m bragging or laying claim to some fortitude of character. I can’t think of another type of self-injury that might be similarly lauded, except maybe binge drinking. Technically the shifts were 30 hours, the mandatory limit imposed by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, but we stayed longer because people kept getting sick. Being a doctor is supposed to be about putting other people’s needs before your own. Our job was to power through.

The shifts usually felt shorter than they were, because they were so hectic. There was always a new patient in the emergency room who needed to be admitted, or a staff member on the eighth floor (which was full of late-stage terminally ill people) who needed me to fill out a death certificate. Sleep deprivation manifested as bouts of anger and despair mixed in with some euphoria, along with other sensations I’ve not had before or since. I remember once sitting with the family of a patient in critical condition, discussing an advance directive—the terms defining what the patient would want done were his heart to stop, which seemed likely to happen at any minute. Would he want to have chest compressions, electrical shocks, a breathing tube? In the middle of this, I had to look straight down at the chart in my lap, because I was laughing. This was the least funny scenario possible. I was experiencing a physical reaction unrelated to anything I knew to be happening in my mind. There is a type of seizure, called a gelastic seizure, during which the seizing person appears to be laughing—but I don’t think that was it. I think it was plain old delirium. It was mortifying, though no one seemed to notice.

Why the ingrained expectation that women should desire to become parents is unhealthy

In 2008, Nebraska decriminalized child abandonment. The move was part of a "safe haven" law designed to address increased rates of infanticide in the state. Like other safe-haven laws, parents in Nebraska who felt unprepared to care for their babies could drop them off in a designated location without fear of arrest and prosecution. But legislators made a major logistical error: They failed to implement an age limitation for dropped-off children.

Within just weeks of the law passing, parents started dropping off their kids. But here's the rub: None of them were infants. A couple of months in, 36 children had been left in state hospitals and police stations. Twenty-two of the children were over 13 years old. A 51-year-old grandmother dropped off a 12-year-old boy. One father dropped off his entire family -- nine children from ages one to 17. Others drove from neighboring states to drop off their children once they heard that they could abandon them without repercussion.

His paranoid style paved the road for Trumpism. Now he fears what’s been unleashed.

Glenn Beck looks like the dad in a Disney movie. He’s earnest, geeky, pink, and slightly bulbous. His idea of salty language is bullcrap.

The atmosphere at Beck’s Mercury Studios, outside Dallas, is similarly soothing, provided you ignore the references to genocide and civilizational collapse. In October, when most commentators considered a Donald Trump presidency a remote possibility, I followed audience members onto the set of The Glenn Beck Program, which airs on Beck’s website, theblaze.com. On the way, we passed through a life-size replica of the Oval Office as it might look if inhabited by a President Beck, complete with a portrait of Ronald Reagan and a large Norman Rockwell print of a Boy Scout.

Since the end of World War II, the most crucial underpinning of freedom in the world has been the vigor of the advanced liberal democracies and the alliances that bound them together. Through the Cold War, the key multilateral anchors were NATO, the expanding European Union, and the U.S.-Japan security alliance. With the end of the Cold War and the expansion of NATO and the EU to virtually all of Central and Eastern Europe, liberal democracy seemed ascendant and secure as never before in history.

Under the shrewd and relentless assault of a resurgent Russian authoritarian state, all of this has come under strain with a speed and scope that few in the West have fully comprehended, and that puts the future of liberal democracy in the world squarely where Vladimir Putin wants it: in doubt and on the defensive.

The same part of the brain that allows us to step into the shoes of others also helps us restrain ourselves.

You’ve likely seen the video before: a stream of kids, confronted with a single, alluring marshmallow. If they can resist eating it for 15 minutes, they’ll get two. Some do. Others cave almost immediately.

This “Marshmallow Test,” first conducted in the 1960s, perfectly illustrates the ongoing war between impulsivity and self-control. The kids have to tamp down their immediate desires and focus on long-term goals—an ability that correlates with their later health, wealth, and academic success, and that is supposedly controlled by the front part of the brain. But a new study by Alexander Soutschek at the University of Zurich suggests that self-control is also influenced by another brain region—and one that casts this ability in a different light.

Modern slot machines develop an unbreakable hold on many players—some of whom wind up losing their jobs, their families, and even, as in the case of Scott Stevens, their lives.

On the morning of Monday, August 13, 2012, Scott Stevens loaded a brown hunting bag into his Jeep Grand Cherokee, then went to the master bedroom, where he hugged Stacy, his wife of 23 years. “I love you,” he told her.

Stacy thought that her husband was off to a job interview followed by an appointment with his therapist. Instead, he drove the 22 miles from their home in Steubenville, Ohio, to the Mountaineer Casino, just outside New Cumberland, West Virginia. He used the casino ATM to check his bank-account balance: $13,400. He walked across the casino floor to his favorite slot machine in the high-limit area: Triple Stars, a three-reel game that cost $10 a spin. Maybe this time it would pay out enough to save him.

“Well, you’re just special. You’re American,” remarked my colleague, smirking from across the coffee table. My other Finnish coworkers, from the school in Helsinki where I teach, nodded in agreement. They had just finished critiquing one of my habits, and they could see that I was on the defensive.

I threw my hands up and snapped, “You’re accusing me of being too friendly? Is that really such a bad thing?”

“Well, when I greet a colleague, I keep track,” she retorted, “so I don’t greet them again during the day!” Another chimed in, “That’s the same for me, too!”

Unbelievable, I thought. According to them, I’m too generous with my hellos.

When I told them I would do my best to greet them just once every day, they told me not to change my ways. They said they understood me. But the thing is, now that I’ve viewed myself from their perspective, I’m not sure I want to remain the same. Change isn’t a bad thing. And since moving to Finland two years ago, I’ve kicked a few bad American habits.

A report will be shared with lawmakers before Trump’s inauguration, a top advisor said Friday.

Updated at 2:20 p.m.

President Obama asked intelligence officials to perform a “full review” of election-related hacking this week, and plans will share a report of its findings with lawmakers before he leaves office on January 20, 2017.

Deputy White House Press Secretary Eric Schultz said Friday that the investigation will reach all the way back to 2008, and will examine patterns of “malicious cyber-activity timed to election cycles.” He emphasized that the White House is not questioning the results of the November election.

Asked whether a sweeping investigation could be completed in the time left in Obama’s final term—just six weeks—Schultz replied that intelligence agencies will work quickly, because the preparing the report is “a major priority for the president of the United States.”

A professor of cognitive science argues that the world is nothing like the one we experience through our senses.

As we go about our daily lives, we tend to assume that our perceptions—sights, sounds, textures, tastes—are an accurate portrayal of the real world. Sure, when we stop and think about it—or when we find ourselves fooled by a perceptual illusion—we realize with a jolt that what we perceive is never the world directly, but rather our brain’s best guess at what that world is like, a kind of internal simulation of an external reality. Still, we bank on the fact that our simulation is a reasonably decent one. If it wasn’t, wouldn’t evolution have weeded us out by now? The true reality might be forever beyond our reach, but surely our senses give us at least an inkling of what it’s really like.

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

This article is from the archive of our partner .

We can all agree that Millennials are the worst. But what is a Millennial? A fight between The New York Times and Slate inspired us to try and figure that out.

After the Times ran a column giving employers tips on how to deal with Millennials (for example, they need regular naps) (I didn't read the article; that's from my experience), Slate's Amanda Hess pointed out that the examples the Times used to demonstrate their points weren't actually Millennials. Some of the people quoted in the article were as old as 37, which was considered elderly only 5,000 short years ago.

The age of employees of The Wire, the humble website you are currently reading, varies widely, meaning that we too have in the past wondered where the boundaries for the various generations were drawn. Is a 37-year-old who gets text-message condolences from her friends a Millennial by virtue of her behavior? Or is she some other generation, because she was born super long ago? (Sorry, 37-year-old Rebecca Soffer who is a friend of a friend of mine and who I met once! You're not actually that old!) Since The Wire is committed to Broadening Human Understanding™, I decided to find out where generational boundaries are drawn.